Well, this is interesting.

#1

Bruton Smith said some uncomplimentary things about Homestead
Speedway. No-one there seems particularly bothered, tho.

Bruton also said: "the Daytona 500 should not have started as late
as it did" and "Auto Club Speedway in Fontana, Calif., was in the
wrong place and that if he bought it he'd move the Cup races and
then not know what to do with the track"

Seems Bruton's got a lot better handle on this racing business
than the France/Helton congomlerate.

John

#2

On Sat, 7 Mar 2009 19:40:23 CST, John McCoy <igopogo (AT) ix (DOT) netcom.com> wrote in <Xns9BC7D232413F0pogosupernews (AT) 216 (DOT) 168.3.30>:

Quote:

Bruton Smith said some uncomplimentary things about Homestead
Speedway. No-one there seems particularly bothered, tho.

Bruton also said: "the Daytona 500 should not have started as late
as it did" and "Auto Club Speedway in Fontana, Calif., was in the
wrong place and that if he bought it he'd move the Cup races and
then not know what to do with the track"

Seems Bruton's got a lot better handle on this racing business
than the France/Helton congomlerate.

Which corporate group owns the goose that lays
the golden eggs?

Which corporation grosses more money per annum?

Which provides the most employment for various
and sundry kinds of participants?

Which one is offering free advice? ;o)

There's always more than one way to skin a cat
(if'n yore inta skinnin' cats, o' corse).

Marty
--
Big-8 newsgroups: humanities.*, misc.*, news.*, rec.*, sci.*, soc.*, talk.*
See http://www.big-8.org for info on how to add or remove newsgroups.

#3

On Mar 7, 10:41*pm, "Martin X. Moleski, SJ" <mole... (AT) canisius (DOT) edu>
wrote:

Quote:

Which corporate group owns the goose that lays
the golden eggs?

Which corporation grosses more money per annum?

Which provides the most employment for various
and sundry kinds of participants?

Come on Marty. You know that "bigger" doesn't always mean "better".
The biggest domestic auto maker is about to bite the proverbial dust
in spite of getting billions of dollars of our money while the #2 guys
say they don't need the help.

<moderator's hat>
This example is NOT an invitation to discuss the current
Administration's economic policies. It was strictly an illustration
of "bigger" vs. "better".
</moderator's hat>

The mere fact that the France bunch currently owns the product doesn't
prove that Bruton couldn't do a better job with it. Maybe he could
and maybe he couldn't, but FWIW, I agree with John. I've been around
this thing for a long time. I've heard Bruton called some pretty
nasty names, but my observation is that he's a lot more in tune with
what fans want than the current crop of Frances are.

Quote:

There's always more than one way to skin a cat
(if'n yore inta skinnin' cats, o' corse).

But there ain't no way to do it so the cat will like it.

#4

You know, most family owned companies fail when they fall into the hands of
the second generation, because that generation lacks whatever it is that
made their predecessors succeed, whether it's particular skills or even just
the hunger. That clearly wasn't true with NASCAR; second generation may
well have been better than the first. Of course, second generation was old
enough to be there for the whole show, even if too young to be in charge in
the early days.

Third generation, however, has no memory of anything other than wealth and
privilege. Whatever Brian may have, he doesn't have the hunger; he doesn't
have the passion. He gives the impression that if he hadn't been born into
a racing family he wouldn't be there: if he'd been born wealthy with an open
choice of where the money should be, it wouldn't be racing. If he'd been
born your average working stiff, he'd never have chosen to go to a race, or
turned one on on the idiot box. He's in NASCAR because "it's what you do if
you're a France" and for no other reason.

Bruton has the passion; he still has the hunger, zillions of dollars later.
Then again, he's still the old generation. Whether *his* son will share his
insight and skill or whether he'll be at Brian's level remains to be seen.

--pig

On 3/8/09 09:17, in article
f4c0803f-2053-4f9a-846a-7aae6e1a582d...oglegroups.com,
"bob.paxton (AT) gmail (DOT) com" <bob.paxton (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote:

Quote:

The mere fact that the France bunch currently owns the product doesn't
prove that Bruton couldn't do a better job with it. Maybe he could
and maybe he couldn't, but FWIW, I agree with John. I've been around
this thing for a long time. I've heard Bruton called some pretty
nasty names, but my observation is that he's a lot more in tune with
what fans want than the current crop of Frances are.

#5

Megan Zurawicz <listpig (AT) sbcglobal (DOT) net> wrote in
news:C5D9488F.6AB19%listpig (AT) sbcglobal (DOT) net:

Quote:

You know, most family owned companies fail when they fall into the
hands of the second generation, because that generation lacks whatever
it is that made their predecessors succeed, whether it's particular
skills or even just the hunger. That clearly wasn't true with NASCAR;
second generation may well have been better than the first.

That's because you're misremembering the adage. It's most family
owned companies fail when they fall into the 3rd generation.

You can see the results of that from Ford to Motorola. NASCAR is,
unfortunately, following the pattern.

The reason, I think, is that the third generation is unfamiliar
with the product and the market. The first generation saw the
need for the product, and created it. The second generation grew
up with the product - it was probably the sole focus of their
father's life, and very likely the second generation worked in
the factory or on the sales floor when they were young. Both
of these generations were so immersed in their product and market
that they could instinctively make good choices.

The third generation, by contrast, grew up in wealth and priviledge.
They went to private schools, took educational vacations instead of
working, got degrees in "management" from Harvard. But they have
little understanding of their product, and no connection with their
customers. They make their decisions based on statistical analysis
and whatever other voodoo techniques their management classes
taught them were "good management". At best, these give "safe"
results, but most often they end up with a sluggish company that's
late to every party with a mediocre, "designed by committee" sort
of product.

John

#6

"Martin X. Moleski, SJ" <moleski (AT) canisius (DOT) edu> wrote in
news:7eCdnRrZmO3erS7UnZ2dnUVZ_hGWnZ2d (AT) supernews (DOT) com:

Quote:

On Sat, 7 Mar 2009 19:40:23 CST, John McCoy <igopogo (AT) ix (DOT) netcom.com
wrote in <Xns9BC7D232413F0pogosupernews (AT) 216 (DOT) 168.3.30>:

Bruton Smith said some uncomplimentary things about Homestead
Speedway. No-one there seems particularly bothered, tho.

Bruton also said: "the Daytona 500 should not have started as late
as it did" and "Auto Club Speedway in Fontana, Calif., was in the
wrong place and that if he bought it he'd move the Cup races and
then not know what to do with the track"

Seems Bruton's got a lot better handle on this racing business
than the France/Helton congomlerate.

Which corporate group owns the goose that lays
the golden eggs?

Which corporation grosses more money per annum?

Which provides the most employment for various
and sundry kinds of participants?

Which one is offering free advice? ;o)

Which corporation sells out their events, despite labouring
under the disadvantage of having to abide by rules made up
by their competition?

John

#7

On Sun, 8 Mar 2009 08:17:48 CST, bob.paxton (AT) gmail (DOT) com wrote in
<f4c0803f-2053-4f9a-846a-7aae6e1a582d (AT) 41g2000yqf (DOT) googlegroups.com>:

Quote:

Come on Marty. You know that "bigger" doesn't always mean "better".

Sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't.

Would you allow one make to run an engine with a bigger
displacement?

If you were the driver, would you want more cubic inches?
More gallons in the tank? Bigger and better brakes than
the competition?

Quote:

The mere fact that the France bunch currently owns the product doesn't
prove that Bruton couldn't do a better job with it. Maybe he could
and maybe he couldn't, but FWIW, I agree with John. I've been around
this thing for a long time. I've heard Bruton called some pretty
nasty names, but my observation is that he's a lot more in tune with
what fans want than the current crop of Frances are.

I'm just speaking for one fan. That'd be me. I don't
have any grudges about the Daytona start time or the
existence of the California track and races.

There isn't any practical decision that won't be
second-guessed by somebody. It goes with the
terrain.

Marty
--
Big-8 newsgroups: humanities.*, misc.*, news.*, rec.*, sci.*, soc.*, talk.*
See http://www.big-8.org for info on how to add or remove newsgroups.

#8

"Martin X. Moleski, SJ" <moleski (AT) canisius (DOT) edu> wrote in
news:RJWdnZoCO5waai7UnZ2dnUVZ_u6dnZ2d (AT) supernews (DOT) com:

Quote:

I don't
have any grudges about the Daytona start time or the
existence of the California track and races.

Fair enough. But that doesn't mean that

a) it's optimal and can't be improved.

b) that suggestions to change it shouldn't be listened to and discussed,
to see if they point to a closer to optimal situation.

c) that if it was changed you wouldn't find the changed
result to be better than what you currently see as adequate.

John

#9

"John McCoy" <igopogo (AT) ix (DOT) netcom.com> wrote

<snip>

Ding! We have us a Winnah! Won't snip any of the rest, for your further
perusal and edification.

Quote:

That's because you're misremembering the adage. It's most family
owned companies fail when they fall into the 3rd generation.

You can see the results of that from Ford to Motorola. NASCAR is,
unfortunately, following the pattern.

The reason, I think, is that the third generation is unfamiliar
with the product and the market. The first generation saw the
need for the product, and created it. The second generation grew
up with the product - it was probably the sole focus of their
father's life, and very likely the second generation worked in
the factory or on the sales floor when they were young. Both
of these generations were so immersed in their product and market
that they could instinctively make good choices.

The third generation, by contrast, grew up in wealth and priviledge.
They went to private schools, took educational vacations instead of
working, got degrees in "management" from Harvard. But they have
little understanding of their product, and no connection with their
customers. They make their decisions based on statistical analysis
and whatever other voodoo techniques their management classes
taught them were "good management". At best, these give "safe"
results, but most often they end up with a sluggish company that's
late to every party with a mediocre, "designed by committee" sort
of product.

John

--
Tom in Bristol

#10

"John McCoy" <igopogo (AT) ix (DOT) netcom.com> wrote

Quote:

"Martin X. Moleski, SJ" <moleski (AT) canisius (DOT) edu> wrote in
news:RJWdnZoCO5waai7UnZ2dnUVZ_u6dnZ2d (AT) supernews (DOT) com:

I don't
have any grudges about the Daytona start time or the
existence of the California track and races.

Fair enough. But that doesn't mean that

a) it's optimal and can't be improved.

b) that suggestions to change it shouldn't be listened to and discussed,
to see if they point to a closer to optimal situation.

c) that if it was changed you wouldn't find the changed
result to be better than what you currently see as adequate.

John

See my earlier response and insert here --> _________!!
--
Tom in Bristol...yer on a roll, John!